Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10

Where is the dispute?
Well... the entire article. Anywhere with a date.

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:FleetCommand (Fully involved)
 * User:Gyrobo (Fully involved)
 * User:Jasper Deng (Partially involved)
 * User:Walter Görlitz (Stepped into this when I was walking by the article, but don't really want to be involved)

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 * Fleet Command (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Walter Görlitz Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
One day, I came to the article in question (Internet Explorer 10). I started improving the article. Along my improvements, I found that the article did not have a consistent date format and so I changed all the dates in the article to the first WP:DATESNO-approved format that was inserted in the article. (MMM DD, YYYY). (I believed that doing so is in accordance to the WP:DATESRET.) I also used dts per the same Manual of Style. Then, I added six citations, containing eleven additional dates.

Then, one User:Gyrobo came along and changed all the dates in citations to YYYY-MM-DD, citing the later section of the manual of style.

I tried to reason with him in talk page, directly quoting from the latter manual of style. Surprisingly, he does not reject any of my reasoning (with or without citing a policy page). He simply refuses to conclude the discussion.

What would you like to change about this?
I want the discussion to end with a clear-cut result that specifies:
 * 1) Which date style the article should use...
 * 2) Based on which policy, guideline or essay...

How do you think we can help?
Give third, fourth, fifth, etc. opinions that appropriately cite a policy, guideline or essay.

Stay on topic and do not pay attention to meta-reasoning, side discussions or the reputation of us involved in the discussion. I'd like to emphasis on the importance of the bold part. It is more than urgent the core problem is solved before any problem attached to it, given ground to it or created because of it is attended to.

If necessary, invite an honest administrator with a good standing.

Mediator notes
The requesting party should notify all involved parties with the goal of resolving this problem. Please also condense any and all notes.rm2dance (talk)
 * I resign as mediator of this case, effective immediately.rm2dance (talk)
 * Copy that! All notations are condensed. Calling involving parties now. Fleet Command (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be mediating this case, if that's alright with the involved parties. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:59pm • 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The date format as per MOS:DATEUNIFY should be consistent in the prose only, not the references. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:03pm • 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the diffs provided by Gyrobo, I've come to the conclusion that:
 * FleetCommand has been misinterpreting policy. True, WP:DATERET states that:
 * If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
 * The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
 * HOWEVER, MOS:DATEUNIFY CLEARLY states:
 * Dates in article body text should all have the same format:
 * Correct:Julia ate a poisoned apple on 25 June 2005. She died three days later on 28 June.
 * Incorrect:Julia ate a poisoned apple on 25 June 2005. She died three days later on June 28.
 * Dates in article references should all have the same format.
 * In the same article, do
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008)
 * Smith, J. (Sep 2002)
 * Smith, J. (Sep 2002)


 * but not
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008)
 * Smith, J. (September 2008)
 * Smith, J. (September 2008)


 * Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD
 * In the same article, do
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009.
 * or
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05.
 * but not
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009.

Further, the last sentence of "Format consistency of MOS:NUM STATES: These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles.


 * Thus it does not matter that FleetCommand was the primary or main contributor to the article as MOS:DATEUNIFY CLEARLY states which date formats should be used in prose and referencing, true WP:DATERET states reasons for changing date formats should be if the article has strong national ties, IE10 does not have any such national ties, it is a multi-national project so that paragraph is moot.
 * However, looking at the article history in the earliest 50 contributions e.g. this one I CAN ALREADY see MDY being used and WP:DATERET clearly states the first person to insert a date is considered the "first major contributor" so FleetCommand's argument is moot. The first editor to insert a date was Jlindenbaum.
 * Furthermore, the diffs provided show that FleetCommand largely ignored MOS:DATEUNIFY and continually asserted his being the "first major contributor", the basis for his arguments was largely WP:DATERET and his adamancy shows a refusal to accept that he was wrong and misinterpreted policy, his BRD notice on Gyrobo's talk page as provided in one of the diffs was rather uncivil and shows again his assertion that one date format should be used in the article through and through, despite being wrong.
 * In addition he continually presented fallacies in his arguments, largely from what appears to be his ignoring of MOS:DATEUNIFY.

I propose that the involved parties take into account these observations and make informed decisions. I cannot stress how important it is to READ the entire POLICY before making a decision and using it subsequent arguments. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:36pm • 02:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I confess I was not aware the argument had stretched over the period of months and that this was not the first dispute that involved the... well involved parties. I have made further observations:


 * Gyrobo was correct in reverting FleetCommand's edits in regard to changing the date format used.
 * FleetCommand was unaware of MOS:DATEUNIFY, however, he misinterpreted WP:DATERET when it said that: Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
 * As such FleetCommand was incorrect when he asserted that he was the first major contributor (which he interpreted to mean in relation to content), Jlindenbaum as stated above was the "first major contributor" as he was the first to insert a date template into the article.

I propose that FleetCommand and Gyrobo not engage in reverting one another without clearly reading the relevant style guides and policies and that when making reversions or additions based on policy that they are ABSOLUTELY sure that they have correctly read that same policy, if they are unsure as to the exact meaning of the policy or style guide, they should ask another member of the community with experience in that area of policy before making a possibly uninformed decision.

I think that it'd be wise for FleetCommand to think carefully before reverting and to keep in mind that he should be civil, having been reported at the 3RR noticeboard multiple times, I suggest he voluntarily follow WP:1RR, else that sanction be involuntarily enacted upon him. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:28pm • 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation over, pending involved parties agreement on the outcome of the resolution. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:01pm • 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation concluded, I have done what the requesting party asked of me. The original dispute was over the use of date formats and which were/not acceptable. I was never asked to resolve a dispute about date sorting templates, whether/not the parties agree with me is up-to-them, I have given my opinion on this off-shoot dispute and after getting an outside opinion on the matter I have decided to close the case. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:43am • 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think this is just a matter of policy wars.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that the article is now using the MDY date format, also taking a look at the page history I can see constructive edits and reverting of good faith edits, I see no evidence of warring within the past 2 days. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:46pm • 12:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FleetCommand has had a history of calling BRD violations edit warring, which I've told him to stop but he hasn't.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems this goes back further than I thought, have you considered proposing administrative action at WP:ANI? Mediators (MedCom or MedCab) can not enforce proposed resolutions, that is up to the involved parties. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:25pm • 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a Wikiquette issue, not something that can be sanctioned, except by community ban.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have already called one. Administrator Stifle (if my memory serves well) attended and said that both me and Jasper should avoid making a big deal out of it, should assume good faith in each other and should consider discussing contents not people. Well, that's what me and Jasper are doing. If I may say so, Jasper has become very polite recently. I appreciate his behavior. I think the rift between us is starting to heal.  And yes, I have a history of using BRD, which is not illegal. It only proves Jimbo Wales statement that difference of opinion exists and it is a natural thing. (He used a metaphor that I don't remember, but that is not important. The important thing is: Difference of opinion exists and BRD is proved way of solving it.)  If I may say so, I once had the same attitude towards BRD that Jasper has towards it now. I thought it was wrong, since a lot of people pulled it on me. But I learned to respect it. In the latest case, user Mabdul had used BRD on one of my edits and I am absolutely okay with it. (He had the right to.) Fleet Command (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:DATEUNIFY references should be in shortened DMY (3 letters of month name, full year and day) or YYYY-MM-DD ONLY. So Gyrobo was correct in reverting changes to the references. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:57pm • 12:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There is no such statement there. Both full and shortened forms are allowed, but shortened forms are just used for examples only. In fact, MOSUNIFY says:
 * In general, the following formats are acceptable:
 * Month before day: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (comma required)
 * Day before month: 14 February and 14 February 1990 (no comma)


 * I think it would help if I described the origin of this dispute. On April 7, FleetCommand left a message on my talk page in response to this edit to WebM. A few days later, I noticed that he'd changed the date format on Internet Explorer 10, and I let him know on his talk page that I felt his actions, whether intentional or not, weren't honoring the outcome of the discussion we had last year. FleetCommand immediately responded in a confrontational tone, started this content dispute, and left a rude and confrontational message on my talk page. I tried to explain to FleetCommand that by immediately invoking policies and telling editors that he's willing to escalate, he's causing unnecessary tension. I believe that this content dispute is an act of spite. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this is very helpful to resolve this situation quickly, though it seems the mediator that is helping me, James, has an alternative approach. After reviewing this, regardless of the conflict deriving out of spite or not, we must leave possible personal issues out of the case. The case has been presented and our goal is to quickly resolve the concern in an orderly fashion :) rm2dance (talk)
 * After reviewing everything again, I've decided this problem is a problem of policy, and I've no interest in wasting time in policy or frivolous debates, so I thereby resign my volunteering as mediator of this case. James will take over.rm2dance (talk)


 * Thanks, James. It is good to have this issue resolved, finally. Indeed, I confess that I had not seen part of MOS:DATEUNIFY. (And has never been told of its existence.) However, I have several minor objections.
 * You said: "FleetCommand's argument is moot. The first editor to insert a date was Jlindenbaum." That is true but that is also my argument! In fact, I even cited Jlindenbaum's edit in talk page. How can my argument be both true and moot?
 * You established that the date style in citation and article body can be different. Okay! I accept! But this does not justify why Gyrobo changed the date style of the table! Table is part of article body, isn't it? So, according to Jlindenbaum date style, it should be MMM DD, YYYY. In fact WP:DATESNO states:  "For sorting in tables consider using or." That is exactly what I did and Gyrobo undid. So, do you or do you not think that the table should be reverted to Jlindenbaum date style?
 * WP:DATESRET says:  "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. [...]" Well, is that not clear that I am the first major contributor? I closed its AfD; I added it to WikiProjects; I fixed its structure; I found six additional citations to help establish its notability. So, am I not the first major contributor in early stages? And, does this sentence not allow me to use just any date style, be it for citations or body?  Fleet Command (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I admit I did not go that in-depth with my reviewing the history and diffs, that is solely my fault. however in regards to no. 3, DATERET also says the first editor to use a date format is considered the first major contributor:

Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

You were a major CONTENT contributor, but Jlindenbaum was the first to insert a date format into the article, the same format which according to policy should have been used thereafter since it was unclear what date format to be used prior to that, thus Gyrobo's reversion of your change to the date format was valid as stated by policy, however, you are again correct that he should NOT have changed the date format in the table. Thus, what Jlindenbaum used is to remain in use unless there is a signifcant reason for not doing so as policy states. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:04pm • 09:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are partly correct. But first, I also contributed a lot to citations too. (Eleven dates and six citations.) Second, this second clause of DATESRET makes a distinction between the "first major contributor" and "the first person who inserts a date". Otherwise, it would have simply said: The date format chosen by the first person who inserts a date should continue to be used. As a matter of fact, per WP:STABILITY, most Wikipedians agree that the style of article (dates or otherwise) should not be changed once established. That means, once the article has a unified style, no one should change it on such pretexts as "the unifier was wrong to unify it the way he did; he was not a good enough an archeologist to dig out the past and unearth dinosaur fossils" or "he should have unified it so because I think he did it in bad faith". Most Wikipedians simply assume good faith in the unifier's archeology (!) or sense of judgment. Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read it again for it clearly says:

The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
 * Either way Jlindenbaum is the first major contributor, since it was he who when there was no clear date format that inserted the date and as the first major contributor the date format HE USED should be continued to be used. I don't see how the wording is in anyway ambiguous as you make it out to be. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:43pm • 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, although I still disagree with you (see Top 50 editors in this page), we can lay it off; I am cool, now that you speak policy-wise and peacefully. Only objection #2 remains. (I don't insist.) Oh, and remember that we are supposed to focus on the core issue of dates only. So, no more comments on the reverts please. Currently, a member of Arbitration Committee is informally attending to these side issues and will probably advise on opening a case in appropriate place. Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:DATERET carefully, I understand you're the major contributor but that's in the context of content contribution in the context of policy, if the date was unclear, the first person to insert a date is the first major contributor, since you were not the first to insert a date (you started contributing about a day or two later), the first major contributor with respect to date insertion rightfully belongs to Jlindenbaum. The reverts are very relevant because I found you and Jasper Deng in a minor edit war on the article.

You are misinterpreting MOS:NUM. Read it carefully, at the start of WP:DATERET it says the date format used by the first major contributor should be retained, but then it goes on to say that where an article had no date format or where the date format was unclear, the first person to insert a date is the first major contributor in that respect.

I do ask that you be cautious with editing in future as policy escapes me at times as well, but we should always try and make changes to the best of our knowledge and in the event that one questions themselves, they should always refer to the relevant policy prior to making that change. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:04am • 23:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see now! I was NOT the major contributor at the time of date conversion. Okay then! That is it! I agree and I am sorry. But you still need to focus on the matter at hand. Here is what happened (not what I intended to happen but what actually happened):
 * Fleet Command comes to Internet Explorer 10 article.
 * Fleet Command sees that article body does not have a consistent date format.
 * Fleet Command converts the dates in the article body to the date format that corresponds to Jlindenbaum, the first person who inserted the first date.
 * Fleet Command sees that article references do not have consistent date format.
 * According to James and MOS:UNIFY, Fleet Command should choose between Jlindenbaum's style or YYYY-MM-DD. Fleet Command chooses Jlindenbaum's style.
 * Fleet Command converts the dates in the article references to that of Jlindenbaum's style.
 * Gyrobo comes to the article.
 * Gyrobo sees that the article body's date style is uniformly in Jlindenbaum's style.
 * Gyrobo changes to one of the dates in the article body to YYYY-MM-DD style. This is a violation of both clauses of WP:DATESRET, as well as MOS:STABILITY.
 * Gyrobo sees that the article references' date style is uniformly in Jlindenbaum's style.
 * Gyrobo changes them all to YYYY-MM-DD. This is a violation of clause one of WP:DATESRET as well as MOS:STABILITY.
 * Are we on the same page now? Fleet Command (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first editor to add a date to the references (and the table) was 87Fan. Because references can use different formatting than the body, and because tables are also allowed to use YMD for conciseness, the appropriate format for the article's tables and references is YMD. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * James? Fleet Command (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DATESNO:

Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness. (For sorting in tables consider using or .) Because year-initial dates might be assumed to follow the ISO 8601 standard, which mandates the Gregorian calendar, this format should only be used for dates expressed in the Gregorian calendar and for the years 1583 through 9999.

References as per MOS:DATEUNIFY should use YYYY-MM-DD or DD MMM, YYYY. 87Fan only inserted the proper date format for a reference not the prose, that was Jlindenbaum. So Gyrobo is correct, but he had no reason to change ALL dates to YYYY-MM-DD, so per MOS:DATEUNIFY Gyrobo was incorrect in changing the date format for the prose to YYYY-MM-DD. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:04pm • 03:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not change the date formats of the prose, I only changed the dates in the references and, eventually, in the table. The prose format has always been MDY. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:30pm • 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He is right and that, as I said, is violation of policies! Use of dts, as you mentioned above is another policy-accepted form for tables; and Gyrobo's change from one policy-accepted form to another (the one he fancies) is prohibited per WP:STABILITY and clause 1 of WP:DATESRET. As for references, again, MMM DD, YYYY is yet another policy-accepted form. He had no right to change them. Furthermore, DATESRET says "the first person who inserted a date", not "the first person who inserted a date in references" or "the first person who inserted a date in body". Fleet Command (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The date format for references are compatible with the prose date formats if you see WP:DATESNO, because the reference date formats are YYYY-MM-DD and MMM DD YYYY (which is Apr 9, 2011 for example not the full month name), you are right on the mark about MOS:STABILITY though. Both of you were incorrect in some of your edits, yet I am glad that in the end this issue was able to be resolved. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:43pm • 04:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too! Finally, we know what is right and what is wrong. Superb! Okay then, let me summarize what we have come up with and form a final explicit resolution:
 * Fleet Command hereby agrees that YYYY-MM-DD is okay for the citations section; he should not change them if they are predominantly used in the aforementioned sections of one article.
 * Fleet Command agrees that YYYY-MM-DD may be used in long lists and tables.
 * Gyrobo agrees that besides YYYY-MM-DD, the article body's date style may be used in tables and list when they are not long, especially in conjunction with dts and sort.
 * Both agree that when dates in an article's body or/and an article's references section are uniformly written in an accepted style, they should not change them into another style. Accepted formats include:
 * DD MMMM YYYY (e.g. 20 April 2011)
 * MMMM DD, YYYY (e.g. April 20, 2011)
 * DD MMM YYYY for citations section (e.g. 20 Apr 2011)
 * MMM DD, YYYY for citations section (e.g. Apr 20, 2011)
 * YYYY-MM-DD for citations section, long lists, long tables (e.g. 2011-04-20)
 * Does everyone agree? Please respond with "I agree, ~ ". Fleet Command (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As the mediator, I agree. As reference I'd ask the involved parties to refer to this when dealing with date formats in the future. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:47pm • 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Just to clarify, 87Fan inserted a date into the article, that was for a reference and the date format used in references is different to that of prose in that DD MMM, YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD are the only acceptable formats for references, whereas for prose extended MDY or DMY can be and are to be used, Jlindenbaum's insertion of a date format into prose meant that that date format was subsequently to be used in the prose (or body text of the article, tables are exempt from this). — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:14pm • 03:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, having looked at the earlier page history and looking through more diffs I can see that in this earlier edit FleetCommand inserted citations with MDY format which was wrong, Gyrobo's revert was justified then a minor revert war ensued between Jasper and FleetCommand, the result of which is what we now have, that being a unified date format throughout the prose, references and tables. My apologies for misreading the diffs. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:39pm • 03:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't exactly agree, but let's not discuss it: We seem to have reached a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Having looked further the dts template should not have been removed as it is used for sorting purposes by a table and as per the MOS, I've changed it back and left a note. Tables can not sort themselves if a non-numerical date is present the purpose of dts allows the output of the date to be in MDY format (or DMY) but hides the YYYY-MM-DD format. The YMD format is what sorts the table if a person clicks the box under Date, for example. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:52pm • 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of dts in the table, the original format of the table was YMD, which FleetCommand changed to include the template. DATESNO says that YMD is acceptable for tables, and I believe that per DATERET, this format should continue to be used in that context. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong! MOS:DATEUNIFY says:
 * "Dates in article body   text should all have the same format."
 * However, WP:DATESNO makes one exception:
 * "Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long   lists and tables for conciseness."
 * Table is part of the article body and the date style in the article body must be uniform, except for long lists and tables. Well, the table was not long. (I don't even call it a table!) So, uniformity takes over. Therefore, when I arrived, I simply resolved a non-uniformity. Oh, and remember: Conciseness must have a reason too. Fleet Command (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy specifically mentions both tables and lists as contexts in which YMD can be used. References are lists, and tables are tables. Tables are not body prose. The first table date was YMD, and that should be the format used, per DATERET. The length doesn't matter, because the first date used was appropriate in that context. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Prose"? There is no mention of prose in the policy. It's your own invention. There is "article body" and "references". And I think James has already established this twice. Fleet Command (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of the policy, "article body text" is the prose. It's not something I just made up, and I'd appreciate it if you took a less accusatory tone. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I won't say anything further; I have written both "long" and "article body" in bold and large font, but you misinterpret one and somehow manage to ignore the other, not the mention the fact that we have a third opinion on this. I think "article body" refers to prose + image captions + infoboxes + tables + lists + everything else other than references. If you still don't agree, you can open another mediation cabal case and ask whether article body refers to prose only. Fleet Command (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very bottom of DATEUNIFY, it states: "These requirements apply to dates in general prose (emphasis mine) and reference citations". Tables, infoboxes, image captions, and everything else you've mentioned, are not bound by DATEUNIFY. What does apply is DATERET, which is more broad. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the table is not long, see WP:DATESNO for the correct usage of date formats, it says:

Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness. (For sorting in tables consider using 1 November 2008 or November 1, 2008.) Because year-initial dates might be assumed to follow the ISO 8601 standard, which mandates the Gregorian calendar, this format should only be used for dates expressed in the Gregorian calendar and for the years 1583 through 9999.

Note the parenthesis, "(For sorting in tables consider using...)" dts is allowed and so is YMD. Tables and lists are not part of the prose, Dr pda has a nice script which you can use to determine page length (lists and tables not included): here instructions are on the script's talk page. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:21am • 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about your position. I recognize that YMD is not the only format acceptable in tables, and that dts is a viable alternative – but YMD was the first format chosen for tables, which is not bound by the prose's format. Could you please elaborate? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was when using YMD dates in lists and tables, they should be wrapped in the dts template for sorting purposes, since tables can't sort if month names are used, that'd screw up the order (e.g. April would come before January etc.) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:52am • 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll use dts in the future when MDY or DMY is warranted. But dts doesn't support YMD output, and the template doesn't seem necessary in this case because YMD is itself sortable. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * DTS is YMD ;) It just hides the YMD format and displays the DMY or MDY date format in the output (through span tags) for MOS compliance see dts for more info. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:51pm • 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gyrobo is right that YYYY-MM-DD does not need DTS. But he is not right about the use of "prose". For the following reasons:
 * Even if I grant that use of "prose" is correct in this context, the table is still not long. (Notice how I enlarged LONG in your own quote, James?) But I don't grant this yet.
 * Gyrobo did not give us the full sentence. The full sentence is "These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles." As you see, this sentence is meant to compare titles and quotations in the body with the rest of its items; thus the term "general prose" is good equivalent for "everything in article body except title and quotations". (In title and quotations, date formats must correspond to that of the source.)
 * Gyrobo has previously contradicted his statement that "Tables, infoboxes, image captions, and everything else you've mentioned, are not bound by DATEUNIFY". Proof of concept: In WebP article he loves to cite from, Infobox was considered an instance of article body and bound by DATEUNIFY. Also see this and several of its subsequent diffs. Also see this.
 * Fleet Command (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand, go to any Featured process (FA, FL) or Good Article reviews or DYK, all the regulars there will tell you you're wrong, prose DOES NOT include tables and lists but it is still bound by the same date formats that prose is bound by, so too an article's infobox. It's a good to get in the habit of using Dts even before the table becomes long, also refrain from editing the comments of others, it is uncivil and not looked upon favourably. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:10pm • 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, one's own personal reservations should not be taken into account, policy and guideline compliance is paramount. It doesn't matter that you don't think dts shouldn't be used, sure the Mos entry says long tables, but dts hides the YMD output so your objections if solely based on the fact that YMD is used, do not have any significant weight. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:13pm • 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what FleetCommand and I are talking about is the displayed format. We're both aware that dts creates hidden instances of YMD (with a preceding zero), but my question was, which date format should be shown to readers? Dts has a parameter to switch between DMY and MDY, but there's nothing in the documentation about using dts to just display YMD. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For uniformity and continuity, I'd say MDY, since policy allows YMD, DMY and MDY in tables. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:48am • 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question by mabdul
I have again to this topic a question. (I don't followed the discussions on the other talk-pages, although I read here everything) What about the argument that IE10 is part of a series and that the full series and should have constantly the same time format? I know that at leas the IE7/8/9 articles have all MDY (although the release notes at totally mixed up). mabdul 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fifth pillar of Wikipedia states that Wikipedia is not a system of laws. One of the results of it is that if there is no community consensus, essay, guideline, policy or pillar on something, that thing is usually allowed and unrestricted. Currently, there is nothing to enforce, suggest or imply date consistency across multiple articles. Therefore, these articles may have dramatically different date formats. However, another result of the fifth pillar is that every essay, guideline or even policy may be changed (either globally or on a single instance) based on community consensus. (Remember: Consensus, not vote!) Therefore, if a discussion establish that it is best to unify date formats (and other styles) across all Internet Explorer articles, then it should happen. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)